Peer Mentors as Prison Volunteers: Building Bridges Between Institutions and Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One creative way that Departments of Corrections offset costs is by relying on volunteers. Prison volunteers are a heterogeneous group, who provide various programs to incarcerated populations. One unique subset of prison volunteers are peer mentors, who are individuals who have experienced criminal justice interventions and have desisted from criminal activities. These mentors provide unique guidance to individuals who are currently incarcerated or are preparing for release. The current study analyzed responses from peer mentors ( N = 51) and explored their motivations and experiences. Thematic analysis was utilized to assess self-reported motivations and thoughts. Participants described internal, relational, and religious/community-based motivations for facing the barriers and challenges inherent in returning to prisons, in order to provide volunteer services. There is little known about prison volunteers and less about peer mentors. We encourage future research and policy to capitalize on the unique benefits peer mentors may provide incarcerated individuals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".